05/16/2014
Category: Inventorship 
 
 
 
 By: Jesus Hernandez, Blog Editor/Contributor 
 
TitleGen. Electric Co. v. Wilkins, No. 13-1170 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2014).
IssueWilkins argues that the district court erred in concluding that he is not a co-inventor of GE’s ’985 patent because the court did not compare the conception described in Wilkins’s Design and Cost Analysis document [which was introduced as corroborating evidence of inventorship].
Gen. Electric Co. at *10-11 (text added).
HoldingWilkins did not prove his inventorship claim by clear and convincing evidence because he did not present any credible testimony that could be corroborated [since Wilkins was biased due to a financial arrangement with another party and all his answers to questions during litigation were purposefully evasive].
Id. at *11 (text added).
 
© 2000-2014, Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society
Disclaimer & Privacy Policy